"Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1F3Tj.925$ah4.205@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:481c8602$1$30484$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:x-CFCB78.11231803052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <7cTSj.2867$_.1050@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Magus <nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> > Magus <nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>> > news:aYPSj.68898$Q52.4211@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >
>>
>>
>>>> There *are* departments of the federal police, they just aren't
>>>> named "police departments".
>>>
>>> Once again a resort to a dictionary definition as authority. Why
>>> does everyone do this?
>>>
>>> There is no federal police department. There is no general federal
>>> police power. There are, of course, federal law enforcement agencies
>>> that enforce the laws that are within the jurisdiction of the federal
>>> government to enact, but a police department that does not make.
>>>
>>> Get it?
>>
>> Ok, so there are Federal Law Enforcement Agencies but no police?
>>
>> There were no police (in the modern concept) in America at the time of
>> the Constitution either.
>>
>> Pretty much useless factoids.
>>
>> Police, Sherriff, Constable, Marshall, FBI, or other LEO -- A rose by
>> any other name would smell as sweet.
>>
> Still lost, I see.
Still unable to refute the facts, I see.
|
